That I think this is more than a little bit ridiculous should be evident, but I wanted to get some additional input on it from other people here. What it sounds like to me is the same kind of stuff that Olivianus prattles on about, about how "matter doesn't exist" and "consciousness is what matters".

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Shame we didn't get to know who everyone speaking was as it would enable us to avoid them in the future!

That was a complete load of _____________ (insert word here). It is utter bunkum! Quantum physics knows pretty well what matter is - I suppose the answer is going to be quanta of energy. The only way we might see things any differently is if we have some drugs or lots of beer.

Otherwise, there seems to be no sense in any of this.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

I let this play in the background as I did other stuff so as not to have it be a primary annoyance, just a background one. A better title for the video would have been "An Illusion of Reason". I can visualize all the speakers as having taken LSD. I had moments of thought like these in my teens and early twenties but I followed through and realized that they broke down at some point. It's disappointing to see how old some of the people in the video are – yet they still believe this stuff.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

The trouble with consciousness is that it is abstract. The conjecture of “nothing really exists except consciousness” requires “consciousness” to be concrete so that it might be transmitted. Consciousness therefore requires something to detect the other objects of which it becomes conscious and something in which to store and organise the sum of the consciousness. More than that, it postulates that, to have any purpose, some use must be made of what now becomes known, otherwise everything becomes merely an observer of everything else and there is no action and without action, there is nothing of which to be conscious.

The other problem is that the conjecture requires each and every subatomic particle to possess consciousness, because that is what sentient beings are made of. Stones, etc would be conscious as would all the elements.

The problem is that we know that the elements and their constituent parts behave predictably. e.g. hydrogen atoms would have new experiences, of which they are aware, each day; a 100 Million years old rock would be, in our terms, immensely wise, far wiser than us. A star, trillions of times bigger than us, would be unbelievably wise, regardless of its age. In fact, wisdom would be a solely a product of age and size. The bigger you were the more consciousness you would have.

Conclusion:I suspect that this is a theory only held by people who are unusually tall and morbidly obese.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Really, the problem with the waffle on the video is that it is all very well but not thought through enough. When thought through it will be either possible to formulate the ideas into something that can be tested or it is just going to fall into the realm of religion - i.e. you just have to believe it.

When we think what experiments have been done - to show Einstein was right of the bending of space-time and showing Higgs right about his boson - then we can see the experimental scientists manage incredible feats. They just need something that is testable, I imagine that's why these sorts of things are always too vague - juts in case some clever scientist takes them up and shows them as false!

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Naturally. It isn't that they believe that it's not true, at least in most cases, it's that they don't want to take the chance of being wrong. You see, if they admit that they could be wrong, or are even willing to test the truth or falsity of their religious beliefs, then they're running the risk of being blasphemous, which could take away their ticket to heaven. That's also part of why they're usually not willing to admit that scientific evidence - that contradicts their beliefs in some way - could actually be correct. Some of that, though, is just plain old human stubbornness.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.